Abandoned places have to have a story behind them. We see the moment at the time the photograph was made, but we don’t see the story behind why there is nothing there. I think this boils down to the level of abandonment we choose to capture. I have noted before that a completely abandoned and defaced location may not be really interesting because it is completely abandoned. Someplace that has some evidence of humanity and more importantly some indication that humans might come back is more inviting to me photographically.
A temporary absence is intriguing. Most everyone has left a location temporarily and recognizes that experience. We all know what that feels like. We leave things on our desk and go to lunch, or leave our tools on a workbench when we take a break. We are absent for a few moments, not gone forever. If a place is abandoned, will anyone (save the photographer) willingly come back to see what is left? Abandoned means no one is coming back. That we don't know why people have left leaves the viewer with questions that may not be able to answered by the photographer's vision. This type of image needs more than more than a visual treatment; the how and why of the abandonment needs to be included to complete the story.
Comments